Re: no names allowed, we serve types only

On Mar 3, 7:36 am, Gene Wirchenko <ge..._at_ocis.net> wrote:
> On Mon, 1 Mar 2010 19:50:47 -0800 (PST), David BL>> <davi..._at_iinet.net.au> wrote:> >On Feb 25, 6:51 am, Gene Wirchenko <ge..._at_ocis.net> wrote:>> >> >If you are not convinced that's not my problem. I've already hinted at> >> >what my counterargument for the specific issue under discussion would> >> >be. If you want to debate that, don't let me stop you.>> >> Oooh! You gave a hint! How thoughtful. </sarcasm>>> >Brevity's hardly a sin so what's really behind the </sarcasm>? To be> >frank I'm finding it hard to think of anything that does you credit.>> Note how I did not explicitly state what was behind my post. You> did not like it, did you? Well, I feel the same about your hint.>> Please state your argument instead of making cute remarks about> having given a hint. This is a newsgroup where we discuss database> theory, not a crime scene investigation.

Firstly you have me confused with someone else. Secondly this is a
news group after all and it's very common for posters to be terse -
e.g. to reference an idea or point of view in the community or
described in the literature. Thirdly Jan provided references to
papers. Fourthly I thought Jan's hint made it pretty clear what he
meant anyway.

It's quite reasonable to ask a poster to elaborate. What I don't
understand is your sarcasm, and I was asking you to elaborate on that
(that's fair isn't it?).

I would have thought that if you were actually interested in more
detail you would choose a different tact than to be offensive (which
invariably has the opposite outcome). It suggests your motives are
far from sincere.
Received on Tue Mar 02 2010 - 20:03:08 CST